MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409038937 · doi:10.1594/pangaea.859046

LiDAR elevation data of Yukon Coast and Herschel Island in 2012 and 2013

2016· dataset· en· W2409038937 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaroslav Obu, Hugues Lantuit, Michael Fritz, Guido Grosse, Frank Günther, Torsten Sachs, Veit Helm

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElevation (ballistics)OceanographyLidarGeographyPhysical geographyGeologyEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LiDAR scanning of the Yukon Coast and Herschel Island took place during the AIRMETH (AIRborne studies of METHane emissions from Arctic wetlands) campaigns (Kohnert et al., 2014) on 10 July 2012 and on 22 July 2013. Point cloud data were acquired with a RIEGL LMSVQ580 laser scanner instrument on board the Alfred Wegener Institute's POLAR-5 science aircraft. The laser scanner was operated with a 60° scan angle at a flight height of around 200 m above ground in 2012 and 500 m in 2013. This resulted in a scan width from 200 (2012) to 500 m (2013) and a mean point-to-point distance of 0.5–1.0 m. During the flight on July 10, 2012 the weather was cloudy with a cloud base around 200 m.a.s.l. . Air temperature ranged between 10 and 12 °C with wind speed ranging from 15 to 19 km/h from easterly direction (70–90°). The last recorded storm was on June 17. During the scanning on July 22, 2013, the weather was nearly cloudless with air temperature 9 °C. Wind speed was 15 km/h from easterly direction (60–80°). The last storm before the acquisition occurred on July 2.Raw laser data were calibrated, combined with the post-processed GPS trajectory, corrected for altitude, and referenced to the EGM (Earth Gravitational Model) 2008 geoid (Pavlis et al., 2008). The final georeferenced point cloud data accuracy was determined to be better than 0.15 ± 0.1 m. The loss of accuracy varied along the flight track because of the vertical accuracy of the post-processed GPS trajectory. The GPS datawere acquired in 50Hz resolutionwith aNovatel OEM4 receiver on board POLAR-5. The GPS trajectory was post-processed using precise ephemerides and the commercial software package Waypoint 8.5 (PPP [precise point positioning] processing). For the interpolation to the final DEM an inverse distance weighting (IDW) algorithm was applied using all cloud points within a 10 m radius of each point. Finally, the DEMs from the different acquisition years were interpolated toraster grids of 1 m horizontal resolution in NAD83 UTM zone 7 coordinate system. To quantify vertical change that is significant at the 99% confidence interval, we used three times RMS error procedure by Jaw (2001). Vertical accuracies for both datasets were estimated to be 0.15 m, which results in the threshold of 0.64 m for significant vertical elevation change.The accuracy of the datasets was additionally tested at locations characterized by the presence of anthropogenic features that presumably remain stable and are not affected by vertical movements because of artificial embankments underneath them. The differences between both DEM datasets were assessed along profiles and were within the previously-stated 0.15 m uncertainty.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1160.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207